CHAPTER 14.

OF THE SACRAMENTS.

This chapter consists of two principal parts,óI. Of sacraments in
general. The sum of the doctrine stated, sec. 1ñ6. Two classes of
opponents to be guarded againstóviz. those who undervalue the power of
the sacraments, sec. 7ñ13; and those who attribute too much to the
sacraments, sec. 14ñ17. II. Of the sacraments in particular, both of the
Old and the New Testament. Their scope and meaning. Refutation of those who
have either too high or too low ideas of the sacraments.

Sections.

1. Of the sacraments in general. A sacrament defined.

2. Meaning of the word sacrament.

3. Definition explained. Why God seals his promises to us by sacraments.

4. The word which ought to accompany the element, that the sacrament may be
complete.

5. Error of those who attempt to separate the word, or promise of God, from
the element.

6. Why sacraments are called Signs of the Covenant.

7. They are such signs, though the wicked should receive them, but are signs
of grace only to believers.

8. Objections to this view answered.

9. No secret virtue in the sacraments. Their whole efficacy depends on the
inward operation of the Spirit.

10. Objections answered. Illustrated by a simile.

11. Of the increase of faith by the preaching of the word.

12. In what way, and how far, the sacraments are confirmations of our faith.

13. Some regard the sacraments as mere signs. This view refuted.

14. Some again attribute too much to the sacraments. Refutation.

15. Refutation confirmed by a passage from Augustine.

16. Previous views more fully explained.

17. The matter of the sacrament always present when the sacrament is duly
administered.

18. Extensive meaning of the term sacrament.

19. The ordinary sacraments in the Church. How necessary they are.

20. The sacraments of the Old and of the New Testament. The end of both the
same óviz. to lead us to Christ.

21. This apparent in the sacraments of the Old Testament.

22. Apparent also in the sacraments of the New Testament.

23. Impious doctrine of the Schoolmen as to the difference between the Old and
the New Testaments.

24. Scholastic objection answered.

25. Another objection answered.

26. Sacraments of the New Testament sometimes excessively extolled by early
Theologians. Their meaning explained.

1. AKIN to the preaching of the gospel, we have another help to our faith in
the sacraments, in regard to which, it greatly concerns us that some sure
doctrine should be delivered, informing us both of the end for which they were
instituted, and of their present use. First, we must attend to what a sacrament
is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it
is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of
good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in
our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels
as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of
the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a
corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of
these definitions, which in meaning differ not from that of Augustine, which
defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form
of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation. As
its brevity makes it somewhat obscure, and thereby misleads the more
illiterate, I wished to remove all doubt, and make the definition fuller by
stating it at greater length.

2. The reason why the ancients used the term in this sense is not obscure. The
old interpreter, whenever he wished to render the Greek term musthvrion into
Latin, especially when it was used with reference to divine things, used the
word sacramentum. Thus, in Ephesians, ìHaving made known unto us
the mystery (sacramentum) of his will;î and again, ìIf ye
have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to
you-wards, how that by revelation he made known unto me the mysteryî
(sacramentum) (Eph. 1:9; 3:2). In the Colossians, ìEven the
mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but is now made
manifest to his saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the
glory of this mysteryî (sacramentum) (Col. 1:26). Also in the
First Epistle to Timothy, ìWithout controversy, great is the mystery
(sacramentum) of godliness: God was manifest in the fleshî (1 Tim.
3:16). He was unwilling to use the word arcanum (secret), lest the word
should seem beneath the magnitude of the thing meant. When the thing,
therefore, was sacred and secret, he used the term sacramentum. In this
sense it frequently occurs in ecclesiastical writers. And it is well known,
that what the Latins call sacramenta, the Greeks call musthvria
(mysteries). The sameness of meaning removes all dispute. Hence it is that the
term was applied to those signs which gave an august representation of things
spiritual and sublime. This is also observed by Augustine, ìIt were
tedious to discourse of the variety of signs; those which relate to divine
things are called sacramentsî (August. Ep. 5. ad Marcell.).

3. From the definition which we have given, we perceive that there never is a
sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of
appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a
better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it. In this way God
provides first for our ignorance and sluggishness, and, secondly, for our
infirmity; and yet, properly speaking, it does not so much confirm his word as
establish us in the faith of it. 2 For the truth of God is in itself
sufficiently stable and certain, and cannot receive a better confirmation from
any other quarter than from itself. But as our faith is slender and weak, so if
it be not propped up on every side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is
forthwith shaken and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls. And here,
indeed, our merciful Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates
himself to our capacity, that seeing how from our animal nature we are always
creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is
spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he declines not by means of
these earthly elements to lead us to himself, and even in the flesh to exhibit
a mirror of spiritual blessings. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. 60, ad Popul.).
ìWere we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and
incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he delivers
spiritual things under things visible. Not that the qualities which are set
before us in the sacraments are inherent in the nature of the things, but God
gives them this signification.î

4. This is commonly expressed by saying that a sacrament consists of the word
and the external sign. By the word we ought to understand not one which,
muttered without meaning and without faith, by its sound merely, as by a
magical incantation, has the effect of consecrating the element, but one which,
preached, makes us understand what the visible sign means. The thing,
therefore, which was frequently done, under the tyranny of the Pope, was not
free from great profanation of the mystery, for they deemed it sufficient if
the priest muttered the formula of consecration, while the people, without
understanding, looked stupidly on. Nay, this was done for the express purpose
of preventing any instruction from thereby reaching the people: for all was
said in Latin to illiterate hearers. Superstition afterwards was carried to
such a height, that the consecration was thought not to be duly performed
except in a low grumble, which few could hear. Very different is the doctrine
of Augustine concerning the sacramental word. ìLet the word be added to
the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence can there be so much
virtue in water as to touch the body and cleanse the heart, unless by the
agency of the word, and this not because it is said, but because it is
believed? For even in the word the transient sound is one thing, the permanent
power another. This is the word of faith which we preach says the
Apostleî (Rom. 10:8). Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, we have the
expression, ìPurify their hearts by faithî (Acts 15:9). And the
Apostle Peter says, ìThe like figure whereunto even baptism doth now
save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience)î (1 Pet. 3:21). ìThis is the word of faith which
we preach: by which word doubtless baptism also, in order that it may be able
to cleanse, is consecratedî (August. Hom. in Joann. 13). You see how he
requires preaching to the production of faith. And we need not labour to prove
this, since there is not the least room for doubt as to what Christ did, and
commanded us to do, as to what the apostles followed, and a purer Church
observed. Nay, it is known that, from the very beginning of the world, whenever
God offered any sign to the holy Patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to
doctrine, without which our senses would gaze bewildered on an unmeaning
object. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us
understand the promise which, proclaimed aloud by the minister, leads the
people by the hand to that to which the sign tends and directs us.

5. Nor are those to be listened to who oppose this view with a more subtle than
solid dilemma. They argue thus: We either know that the word of God which
precedes the sacrament is the true will of God, or we do not know it. If we
know it, we learn nothing new from the sacrament which succeeds. If we do not
know it, we cannot learn it from the sacrament, whose whole efficacy depends on
the word. Our brief reply is: The seals which are affixed to diplomas, and
other public deeds, are nothing considered in themselves, and would be affixed
to no purpose if nothing was written on the parchment, and yet this does not
prevent them from sealing and confirming when they are appended to writings. It
cannot be alleged that this comparison is a recent fiction of our own, since
Paul himself used it, terming circumcision a seal (Rom. 4:11), where he
expressly maintains that the circumcision of Abraham was not for justification,
but was an attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been
previously justified. And how, pray, can any one be greatly offended when we
teach that the promise is sealed by the sacrament, since it is plain, from the
promises themselves, that one promise confirms another? The clearer any
evidence is, the fitter is it to support our faith. But sacraments bring with
them the clearest promises, and, when compared with the word, have this
peculiarity, that they represent promises to the life, as if painted in a
picture. Nor ought we to be moved by an objection founded on the distinction
between sacraments and the seals of documentsóviz. that since both
consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former cannot be sufficient
or adequate to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and eternal,
though the latter may be employed to seal the edicts of princes concerning
fleeting and fading things. But the believer, when the sacraments are presented
to his eye, does not stop short at the carnal spectacle, but by the steps of
analogy which I have indicated, rises with pious consideration to the sublime
mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.

6. As the Lord calls his promises covenants (Gen. 6:18; 9:9; 17:2), and
sacraments signs of the covenants, so something similar may be inferred from
human covenants. What could the slaughter of a hog effect, unless words were
interposed or rather preceded? Swine are often killed without any interior or
occult mystery. What could be gained by pledging the right hand, since hands
are not unfrequently joined in giving battle? But when words have preceded,
then by such symbols of covenant sanction is given to laws, though previously
conceived, digested, and enacted by words. Sacraments, therefore, are exercises
which confirm our faith in the word of God; and because we are carnal, they are
exhibited under carnal objects, that thus they may train us in accommodation to
our sluggish capacity, just as nurses lead children by the hand. And hence
Augustine calls a sacrament a visible word (August. in Joann. Hom. 89),
because it represents the promises of God as in a picture, and places them in
our view in a graphic bodily form (August. cont. Faust. Lib. 19). We might
refer to other similitudes, by which sacraments are more plainly designated, as
when they are called the pillars of our faith. For just as a building stands
and leans on its foundation, and yet is rendered more stable when supported by
pillars, so faith leans on the word of God as its proper foundation, and yet
when sacraments are added leans more firmly, as if resting on pillars. Or we
may call them mirrors, in which we may contemplate the riches of the grace
which God bestows upon us. For then, as has been said, he manifests himself to
us in as far as our dulness can enable us to recognise him, and testifies his
love and kindness to us more expressly than by word.

7. It is irrational to contend that sacraments are not manifestations of divine
grace toward us, because they are held forth to the ungodly also, who, however,
so far from experiencing God to be more propitious to them, only incur greater
condemnation. By the same reasoning, the gospel will be no manifestation of the
grace of God, because it is spurned by many who hear it; nor will Christ
himself be a manifestation of grace, because of the many by whom he was seen
and known, very few received him. Something similar may be seen in public
enactments. A great part of the body of the people deride and evade the
authenticating seal, though they know it was employed by their sovereign to
confirm his will; others trample it under foot, as a matter by no means
appertaining to them; while others even execrate it: so that, seeing the
condition of the two things to be alike, the appropriateness of the comparison
which I made above ought to be more readily allowed. It is certain, therefore,
that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his
sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who
receive the word and sacraments with firm faith: in like manner as Christ,
though offered and held forth for salvation to all, is not, however,
acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, when intending to intimate this,
said that the efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament, not because
it is spoken, but because it is believed. Hence Paul, addressing believers,
includes communion with Christ, in the sacraments, as when he says, ìAs
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christî (Gal.
3:27). Again, ìFor by one Spirit we are all baptized into one
bodyî (1 Cor. 12:13). But when he speaks of a preposterous use of the
sacraments, he attributes nothing more to them than to frigid, empty figures;
thereby intimating, that however the ungodly and hypocrites may, by their
perverseness, either suppress, or obscure, or impede the effect of divine grace
in the sacraments, that does not prevent them, where and whenever God is so
pleased, from giving a true evidence of communion with Christ, or prevent them
from exhibiting, and the Spirit of God from performing, the very thing which
they promise. We conclude, therefore, that the sacraments are truly termed
evidences of divine grace, and, as it were, seals of the good-will which he
entertains toward us. They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and
increase our faith. The objections usually urged against this view are
frivolous and weak. They say that our faith, if it is good, cannot be made
better; for there is no faith save that which leans unshakingly, firmly, and
undividedly, on the mercy of God. It had been better for the objectors to pray,
with the apostles, ìLord, increase our faithî (Luke 17:5), than
confidently to maintain a perfection of faith which none of the sons of men
ever attained, none ever shall attain, in this life. Let them explain what kind
of faith his was who said, ìLord, I believe; help thou mine
unbeliefî (Mark 9:24). That faith, though only commenced, was good, and
might, by the removal of the unbelief, be made better. But there is no better
argument to refute them than their own consciousness. For if they confess
themselves sinners (this, whether they will or not, they cannot deny), then
they must of necessity impute this very quality to the imperfection of their
faith.

8. But Philip, they say, replied to the eunuch who asked to be baptized,
ìIf thou believest with all thine heart thou mayestî (Acts 8:37).
What room is there for a confirmation of baptism when faith fills the whole
heart? I, in my turn, ask them, Do they not feel that a good part of their
heart is void of faithódo they not perceive new additions to it every
day? There was one who boasted that he grew old while learning. Thrice
miserable, then, are we Christians if we grow old without making progress, we
whose faith ought to advance through every period of life until it grow up into
a perfect man (Eph. 4:13). In this passage, therefore, to believe with the
whole heart, is not to believe Christ perfectly, but only to embrace him
sincerely with heart and soul; not to be filled with him, but with ardent
affection to hunger and thirst, and sigh after him. It is usual in Scripture to
say that a thing is done with the whole heart, when it is done sincerely and
cordially. Of this description are the following passages:óìWith
my whole heart have I sought theeî (Ps. 119:10); ìI will confess
unto thee with my whole heart,î &c. In like manner, when the
fraudulent and deceitful are rebuked, it is said ìwith flattering lips,
and with a double heart, do they speakî (Ps. 12:2). The objectors next
addóìIf faith is increased by means of the sacraments, the Holy
Spirit is given in vain, seeing it is his office to begin, sustain, and
consummate our faith.î I admit, indeed, that faith is the proper and
entire work of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by whom we recognise God and the
treasures of his grace, and without whose illumination our mind is so blind
that it can see nothing, so stupid that it has no relish for spiritual things.
But for the one Divine blessing which they proclaim we count three. For, first,
the Lord teaches and trains us by his word; next, he confirms us by his
sacraments; lastly, he illumines our mind by the light of his Holy Spirit, and
opens up an entrance into our hearts for his word and sacraments, which would
otherwise only strike our ears, and fall upon our sight, but by no means affect
us inwardly.

9. Wherefore, with regard to the increase and confirmation of faith, I would
remind the reader (though I think I have already expressed it in unambiguous
terms), that in assigning this office to the sacraments, it is not as if I
thought that there is a kind of secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them,
by which they can of themselves promote or strengthen faith, but because our
Lord has instituted them for the express purpose of helping to establish and
increase our faith. The sacraments duly perform their office only when
accompanied by the Spirit, the internal Master, whose energy alone penetrates
the heart, stirs up the affections, and procures access for the sacraments into
our souls. If he is wanting, the sacraments can avail us no more than the sun
shining on the eyeballs of the blind, or sounds uttered in the ears of the
deaf. Wherefore, in distributing between the Spirit and the sacraments, I
ascribe the whole energy to him, and leave only a ministry to them; this
ministry, without the agency of the Spirit, is empty and frivolous, but when he
acts within, and exerts his power, it is replete with energy. It is now clear
in what way, according to this view, a pious mind is confirmed in faith by
means of the sacramentsóviz. in the same way in which the light of the
sun is seen by the eye, and the sound of the voice heard by the ear; the former
of which would not be at all affected by the light unless it had a pupil on
which the light might fall; nor the latter reached by any sound, however loud,
were it not naturally adapted for hearing. But if it is true, as has been
explained, that in the eye it is the power of vision which enables it to see
the light, and in the ear the power of hearing which enables it to perceive the
voice, and that in our hearts it is the work of the Holy Spirit to commence,
maintain, cherish, and establish faith, then it follows, both that the
sacraments do not avail one iota without the energy of the Holy Spirit; and
that yet in hearts previously taught by that preceptor, there is nothing to
prevent the sacraments from strengthening and increasing faith. There is only
this difference, that the faculty of seeing and hearing is naturally implanted
in the eye and ear; whereas, Christ acts in our minds above the measure of
nature by special grace.

10. In this way, also, we dispose of certain objections by which some anxious
minds are annoyed. If we ascribe either an increase or confirmation of faith to
creatures, injustice is done to the Spirit of God, who alone ought to be
regarded as its author. But we do not rob him of the merit of confirming and
increasing faith; nay, rather, we maintain that that which confirms and
increases faith, is nothing else than the preparing of our minds by his
internal illumination to receive that confirmation which is set forth by the
sacraments. But if the subject is still obscure, it will be made plain by the
following similitude: Were you to begin to persuade a person by word to do
something, you would think of all the arguments by which he may be brought over
to your view, and in a manner compelled to serve your purpose. But nothing is
gained if the individual himself possess not a clear and acute judgment, by
which he may be able to weigh the value of your arguments; if, moreover, he is
not of a docile disposition, and ready to listen to doctrine; if, in fine, he
has no such idea of your faith and prudence as in a manner to prejudice him in
your favour, and secure his assent. For there are many obstinate spirits who
are not to be bent by any arguments; and where faith is suspected, or authority
contemned, little progress is made even with the docile. On the other hand,
when opposite feelings exist, the result will be, that the person whose
interests you are consulting will acquiesce in the very counsels which he would
otherwise have derided. The same work is performed in us by the Spirit. That
the word may not fall upon our ear, or the sacraments be presented to our eye
in vain, he shows that it is God who there speaks to us, softens our obdurate
hearts, and frames them to the obedience which is due to his word; in short,
transmits those external words and sacraments from the ear to the soul. Both
word and sacraments, therefore, confirm our faith, bringing under view the kind
intentions of our heavenly Father, in the knowledge of which the whole
assurance of our faith depends, and by which its strength is increased; and the
Spirit also confirms our faith when, by engraving that assurance on our minds,
he renders it effectual. Meanwhile, it is easy for the Father of lights, in
like manner as he illumines the bodily eye by the rays of the sun, to illumine
our minds by the sacraments, as by a kind of intermediate brightness.

11. This property our Lord showed to belong to the external word, when, in the
parable, he compared it to seed (Mt. 13:4; Luke 8:15). For as the seed, when it
falls on a deserted and neglected part of the field, can do nothing but die,
but when thrown into ground properly laboured and cultivated, will yield a
hundred-fold; so the word of God, when addressed to any stubborn spirit, will
remain without fruit, as if thrown upon the barren waste, but when it meets
with a soul which the hand of the heavenly Spirit has subdued, will be most
fruitful. But if the case of the seed and of the word is the same, and from the
seed corn can grow and increase, and attain to maturity, why may not faith also
take its beginning, increase, and completion from the word? Both things are
admirably explained by Paul in different passages. For when he would remind the
Corinthians how God had given effect to his labours, he boasts that he
possessed the ministry of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:4); just as if his preaching
were inseparably connected with the power of the Holy Spirit, in inwardly
enlightening the mind, and stimulating it. But in another passage, when he
would remind them what the power of the word is in itself, when preached by
man, he compares ministers to husbandmen, who, after they have expended labour
and industry in cultivating the ground, have nothing more that they can do. For
what would ploughing, and sowing, and watering avail, unless that which was
sown should, by the kindness of Heaven, vegetate? Wherefore he concludes, that
he that planteth, and he that watereth is nothing, but that the whole is to be
ascribed to God, who alone gives the increase. The apostles, therefore, exert
the power of the Spirit in their preaching, inasmuch as God uses them as
instruments which he has ordained for the unfolding of his spiritual grace.
Still, however, we must not lose sight of the distinction, but remember what
man is able of himself to do, and what is peculiar to God.

12. The sacraments are confirmations of our faith in such a sense, that the
Lord, sometimes, when he sees meet to withdraw our assurance of the things
which he had promised in the sacraments, takes away the sacraments themselves.
When he deprives Adam of the gift of immortality, and expels him from the
garden, ìlest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life,
and live for everî (Gen. 3:22). What is this we hear? Could that fruit
have restored Adam to the immortality from which he had already fallen? By no
means. It is just as if he had said, Lest he indulge in vain confidence, if
allowed to retain the symbol of my promise, let that be withdrawn which might
give him some hope of immortality. On this ground, when the apostle urges the
Ephesians to remember, that they ìwere without Christ, being aliens from
the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having
no hope, and without God in the worldî (Eph. 2:12), he says that they
were not partakers of circumcision. He thus intimates metonymically, that all
were excluded from the promise who had not received the badge of the promise.
To the other objectionóviz. that when so much power is attributed to
creatures, the glory of God is bestowed upon them, and thereby
impairedóit is obvious to reply, that we attribute no power to the
creatures. All we say is, that God uses the means and instruments which he sees
to be expedient, in order that all things may be subservient to his glory, he
being the Lord and disposer of all. Therefore, as by bread and other aliment he
feeds our bodies, as by the sun he illumines, and by fire gives warmth to the
world, and yet bread, sun, and fire are nothing, save inasmuch as they are
instruments under which he dispenses his blessings to us; so in like manner he
spiritually nourishes our faith by means of the sacraments, whose only office
is to make his promises visible to our eye, or rather, to be pledges of his
promises. And as it is our duty in regard to the other creatures which the
divine liberality and kindness has destined for our use, and by whose
instrumentality he bestows the gifts of his goodness upon us, to put no
confidence in them, nor to admire and extol them as the causes of our mercies;
so neither ought our confidence to be fixed on the sacraments, nor ought the
glory of God to be transferred to them, but passing beyond them all, our faith
and confession should rise to Him who is the Author of the sacraments and of
all things.

13. There is nothing in the argument which some found on the very term
sacrament. This term, they say, while it has many significations in
approved authors, has only one which is applicable to signsónamely, when
it is used for the formal oath which the soldier gives to his commander on
entering the service. For as by that military oath recruits bind themselves to
be faithful to their commander, and make a profession of military service; so
by our signs we acknowledge Christ to be our commander, and declare that we
serve under his standard. They add similitudes, in order to make the matter
more clear. As the toga distinguished the Romans from the Greeks, who wore the
pallium; and as the different orders of Romans were distinguished from each
other by their peculiar insignia; e. g., the senatorial from the
equestrian by purple, and crescent shoes, and the equestrian from the plebeian
by a ring, so we wear our symbols to distinguish us from the profane. But it is
sufficiently clear from what has been said above, that the ancients, in giving
the name of sacraments to signs, had not at all attended to the use of the term
by Latin writers, but had, for the sake of convenience, given it this new
signification, as a means of simply expressing sacred signs. But were we to
argue more subtilely, we might say that they seem to have given the term this
signification in a manner analogous to that in which they employ the term faith
in the sense in which it is now used. For while faith is truth in performing
promises, they have used it for the certainty or firm persuasion which is had
of the truth. In this way, while a sacrament is the act of the soldier when he
vows obedience to his commander, they made it the act by which the commander
admits soldiers to the ranks. For in the sacraments the Lord promises that he
will be our God, and we that we will be his people. But we omit such
subtleties, since I think I have shown by arguments abundantly plain, that all
which ancient writers intended was to intimate, that sacraments are the signs
of sacred and spiritual things. The similitudes which are drawn from external
objects (chap. 15 sec. 1), we indeed admit; but we approve not, that that which
is a secondary thing in sacraments is by them made the first, and indeed the
only thing. The first thing is, that they may contribute to our faith in God;
the secondary, that they may attest our confession before men. These
similitudes are applicable to the secondary reason. Let it therefore remain a
fixed point, that mysteries would be frigid (as has been seen) were they not
helps to our faith, and adjuncts annexed to doctrine for the same end and
purpose.

14. On the other hand, it is to be observed, that as these objectors impair the
force, and altogether overthrow the use of the sacraments, so there are others
who ascribe to the sacraments a kind of secret virtue, which is nowhere said to
have been implanted in them by God. By this error the more simple and unwary
are perilously deceived, while they are taught to seek the gifts of God where
they cannot possibly be found, and are insensibly withdrawn from God, so as to
embrace instead of his truth mere vanity. For the schools of the Sophists have
taught with general consent that the sacraments of the new law, in other words,
those now in use in the Christian Church, justify, and confer grace, provided
only that we do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. It is impossible to
describe how fatal and pestilential this sentiment is, and the more so, that
for many ages it has, to the great loss of the Church, prevailed over a
considerable part of the world. It is plainly of the devil: for, first, in
promising a righteousness without faith, it drives souls headlong on
destruction; secondly, in deriving a cause of righteousness from the
sacraments, it entangles miserable minds, already of their own accord too much
inclined to the earth, in a superstitious idea, which makes them acquiesce in
the spectacle of a corporeal object rather than in God himself. I wish we had
not such experience of both evils as to make it altogether unnecessary to give
a lengthened proof of them. For what is a sacrament received without faith, but
most certain destruction to the Church? For, seeing that nothing is to be
expected beyond the promise, and the promise no less denounces wrath to the
unbeliever than offers grace to the believer, it is an error to suppose that
anything more is conferred by the sacraments than is offered by the word of
God, and obtained by true faith. From this another thing followsóviz.
that assurance of salvation does not depend on participation in the sacraments,
as if justification consisted in it. This, which is treasured up in Christ
alone, we know to be communicated, not less by the preaching of the Gospel than
by the seal of the sacrament, and may be completely enjoyed without this seal.
So true is it, as Augustine declares, that there may be invisible
sanctification without a visible sign, and, on the other hand, a visible sign
without true sanctification (August. de QuÊst. Vet. Test. Lib. 3). For,
as he elsewhere says, ìMen put on Christ, sometimes to the extent of
partaking in the sacrament, and sometimes to the extent of holiness of
lifeî (August. de Bapt. Cont. Donat. cap. 24). The former may be common
to the good and the bad, the latter is peculiar to the good.

15. Hence the distinction, if properly understood, repeatedly made by Augustine
between the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament. For he
does not mean merely that the figure and truth are therein contained, but that
they do not so cohere as not to be separable, and that in this connection it is
always necessary to distinguish the thing from the sign, so as not to transfer
to the one what belongs to the other. 3 Augustine speaks of the
separation when he says that in the elect alone the sacraments accomplish what
they represent (Augustin. de Bapt. Parvul.). Again, when speaking of the Jews,
he says, ìThough the sacraments were common to all, the grace was not
common: yet grace is the virtue of the sacraments. Thus, too, the laver of
regeneration is now common to all, but the grace by which the members of Christ
are regenerated with their head is not common to allî (August. in Ps.
78). Again, in another place, speaking of the Lordís Supper, he says,
ìWe also this day receive visible food; but the sacrament is one thing,
the virtue of the sacrament another. Why is it that many partake of the altar
and die, and die by partaking? For even the cup of the Lord was poison to
Judas, not because he received what was evil, but being wicked he wickedly
received what was goodî (August. in Joann. Hom. 26). A little after, he
says, ìThe sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body
and blood of Christ, is in some places prepared every day, in others at certain
intervals at the Lordís table, which is partaken by some unto life, by
others unto destruction. But the thing itself, of which there is a sacrament,
is life to all, and destruction to none who partake of it.î Some time
before he had said, ìHe who may have eaten shall not die, but he must be
one who attains to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament;
who eats inwardly, not outwardly; who eats with the heart, and not with the
teeth.î Here you are uniformly told that a sacrament is so separated from
the reality by the unworthiness of the partaker, that nothing remains but an
empty and useless figure. Now, in order that you may have not a sign devoid of
truth, but the thing with the sign, the Word which is included in it must be
apprehended by faith. Thus, in so far as by means of the sacraments you will
profit in the communion of Christ, will you derive advantage from them.

16. If this is obscure from brevity, I will explain it more at length. I say
that Christ is the matter, or, if you rather choose it, the substance of all
the sacraments, since in him they have their whole solidity, and out of him
promise nothing. Hence the less toleration is due to the error of Peter
Lombard, who distinctly makes them causes of the righteousness and salvation of
which they are parts (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 1). Bidding adieu to all other causes
of righteousness which the wit of man devises, our duty is to hold by this
only. In so far, therefore, as we are assisted by their instrumentality in
cherishing, confirming, and increasing the true knowledge of Christ, so as both
to possess him more fully, and enjoy him in all his richness, so far are they
effectual in regard to us. This is the case when that which is there offered is
received by us in true faith. Therefore, you will ask, Do the wicked, by their
ingratitude, make the ordinance of God fruitless and void? I answer, that what
I have said is not to be understood as if the power and truth of the sacrament
depended on the condition or pleasure of him who receives it. That which God
instituted continues firm, and retains its nature, however men may vary; but
since it is one thing to offer, and another to receive, there is nothing to
prevent a symbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, from being truly what it
is said to be, and preserving its power, though it may at the same time confer
no benefit on the wicked and ungodly. This question is well solved by Augustine
in a few words: ìIf you receive carnally, it ceases not to be spiritual,
but it is not spiritual to youî (August. Hom. in Joann. 26). But as
Augustine shows in the above passages that a sacrament is a thing of no value
if separated from its truth; so also, when the two are conjoined, he reminds us
that it is necessary to distinguish, in order that we may not cleave too much
to the external sign. ìAs it is servile weakness to follow the latter,
and take the signs for the thing signified, so to interpret the signs as of no
use is an extravagant errorî (August. de Doct. Christ. Lib. 3 c. 9). He
mentions two faults which are here to be avoided; the one when we receive the
signs as if they had been given in vain, and by malignantly destroying or
impairing their secret meanings, prevent them from yielding any
fruitóthe other, when by not raising our minds beyond the visible sign,
we attribute to it blessings which are conferred upon us by Christ alone, and
that by means of the Holy Spirit, who makes us to be partakers of Christ,
external signs assisting if they invite us to Christ; whereas, when wrested to
any other purpose, their whole utility is overthrown.

17. Wherefore, let it be a fixed point, that the office of the sacraments
differs not from the word of God; and this is to hold forth and offer Christ to
us, and, in him, the treasures of heavenly grace. They confer nothing, and
avail nothing, if not received in faith, just as wine and oil, or any other
liquor, however large the quantity which you pour out, will run away and perish
unless there be an open vessel to receive it. When the vessel is not open,
though it may be sprinkled all over, it will nevertheless remain entirely
empty. We must be aware of being led into a kindred error by the terms,
somewhat too extravagant, which ancient Christian writers have employed in
extolling the dignity of the sacraments. We must not suppose that there is some
latent virtue inherent in the sacraments by which they, in themselves, confer
the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon us, in the same way in which wine is drunk
out of a cup, since the only office divinely assigned them is to attest and
ratify the benevolence of the Lord towards us; and they avail no farther than
accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and make us
capable of receiving this testimony, in which various distinguished graces are
clearly manifested. For the sacraments, as we lately observed (chap. 13 sec. 6;
and 14 sec. 6, 7), are to us what messengers of good news are to men, or
earnests in ratifying pactions. They do not of themselves bestow any grace, but
they announce and manifest it, and, like earnests and badges, give a
ratification of the gifts which the divine liberality has bestowed upon us. The
Holy Spirit, whom the sacraments do not bring promiscuously to all, but whom
the Lord specially confers on his people, brings the gifts of God along with
him, makes way for the sacraments, and causes them to bear fruit. But though we
deny not that God, by the immediate agency of his Spirit, countenances his own
ordinance, preventing the administration of the sacraments which he has
instituted from being fruitless and vain, still we maintain that the internal
grace of the Spirit, as it is distinct from the external ministration, ought to
be viewed and considered separately. God, therefore, truly performs whatever he
promises and figures by signs; nor are the signs without effect, for they prove
that he is their true and faithful author. The only question here is, whether
the Lord works by proper and intrinsic virtue (as it is called), or resigns his
office to external symbols? We maintain, that whatever organs he employs
detract nothing from his primary operation. In this doctrine of the sacraments,
their dignity is highly extolled, their use plainly shown, their utility
sufficiently proclaimed, and moderation in all things duly maintained; so that
nothing is attributed to them which ought not to be attributed, and nothing
denied them which they ought to possess. Meanwhile, we get rid of that fiction
by which the cause of justification and the power of the Holy Spirit are
included in elements as vessels and vehicles, and the special power which was
overlooked is distinctly explained. Here, also, we ought to observe, that what
the minister figures and attests by outward action, God performs inwardly, lest
that which God claims for himself alone should be ascribed to mortal man. This
Augustine is careful to observe: ìHow does both God and Moses sanctify?
Not Moses for God, but Moses by visible sacraments through his ministry, God by
invisible grace through the Holy Spirit. Herein is the whole fruit of visible
sacraments; for what do these visible sacraments avail without that
sanctification of invisible grace? î

18. The term sacrament, in the view we have hitherto taken of it, includes,
generally, all the signs which God ever commanded men to use, that he might
make them sure and confident of the truth of his promises. These he was pleased
sometimes to place in natural objectsósometimes to exhibit in miracles.
Of the former class we have an example, in his giving the tree of life to Adam
and Eve, as an earnest of immortality, that they might feel confident of the
promise as often as they ate of the fruit. Another example was, when he gave
the bow in the cloud to Noah and his posterity, as a memorial that he would not
again destroy the earth by a flood. These were to Adam and Noah as sacraments:
not that the tree could give Adam and Eve the immortality which it could not
give to itself; or the bow (which is only a reflection of the solar rays on the
opposite clouds) could have the effect of confining the waters; but they had a
mark engraven on them by the word of God, to be proofs and seals of his
covenant. The tree was previously a tree, and the bow a bow; but when they were
inscribed with the word of God, a new form was given to them: they began to be
what they previously were not. Lest any one suppose that these things were said
in vain, the bow is even in the present day a witness to us of the covenant
which God made with Noah (Calv. in Gen. 9:6). As often as we look upon it, we
read this promise from God, that the earth will never be destroyed by a flood.
Wherefore, if any philosophaster, to deride the simplicity of our faith, shall
contend that the variety of colours arises naturally from the rays reflected by
the opposite cloud, let us admit the fact; but, at the same time, deride his
stupidity in not recognising God as the Lord and governor of nature, who, at
his pleasure, makes all the elements subservient to his glory. If he had
impressed memorials of this description on the sun, the stars, the earth, and
stones, they would all have been to us as sacraments. For why is the shapeless
and the coined silver not of the same value, seeing they are the same metal?
Just because the former has nothing but its own nature, whereas the latter,
impressed with the public stamp, becomes money, and receives a new value. And
shall the Lord not be able to stamp his creatures with his word, that things
which were formerly bare elements may become sacraments? Examples of the second
class were given when he showed light to Abraham in the smoking furnace (Gen.
15:17), when he covered the fleece with dew while the ground was dry; and, on
the other hand, when the dew covered the ground while the fleece was untouched,
to assure Gideon of victory (Judges 6:37); also, when he made the shadow go
back ten degrees on the dial, to assure Hezekiah of his recovery (2 Kings 20:9;
Isa. 38:7). These things, which were done to assist and establish their faith,
were also sacraments.

19. But my present purpose is to discourse especially of those sacraments which
the Lord has been pleased to institute as ordinary sacraments in his Church, to
bring up his worshippers and servants in one faith, and the confession of one
faith. For, to use the words of Augustine, ìIn no name of religion, true
or false, can men be assembled, unless united by some common use of visible
signs or sacramentsî (August. cont. Faustum, Lib. 9 c. 11). Our most
merciful Father, foreseeing this necessity, from the very first appointed
certain exercises of piety to his servants; these, Satan, by afterwards
transferring to impious and superstitious worship, in many ways corrupted and
depraved. Hence those initiations of the Gentiles into their mysteries, and
other degenerate rites. Yet, although they were full of error and superstition,
they were, at the same time, an indication that men could not be without such
external signs of religion. But, as they were neither founded on the word of
God, nor bore reference to that truth which ought to be held forth by all
signs, they are unworthy of being named when mention is made of the sacred
symbols which were instituted by God, and have not been perverted from their
endóviz. to be helps to true piety. And they consist not of simple
signs, like the rainbow and the tree of life, but of ceremonies, or (if you
prefer it) the signs here employed are ceremonies. But since, as has been said
above, they are testimonies of grace and salvation from the Lord, so, in regard
to us, they are marks of profession by which we openly swear by the name of
God, binding ourselves to be faithful to him. Hence Chrysostom somewhere
shrewdly gives them the name of pactions, by which God enters into covenant
with us, and we become bound to holiness and purity of life, because a mutual
stipulation is here interposed between God and us. For as God there promises to
cover and efface any guilt and penalty which we may have incurred by
transgression, and reconciles us to himself in his only begotten Son, so we, in
our turn, oblige ourselves by this profession to the study of piety and
righteousness. And hence it may be justly said, that such sacraments are
ceremonies, by which God is pleased to train his people, first, to excite,
cherish, and strengthen faith within; and, secondly, to testify our religion to
men.

20. Now these have been different at different times, according to the
dispensation which the Lord has seen meet to employ in manifesting himself to
men. Circumcision was enjoined on Abraham and his posterity, and to it were
afterwards added purifications and sacrifices, and other rites of the Mosaic
Law. These were the sacraments of the Jews even until the advent of Christ.
After these were abrogated, the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lordís
Supper, which the Christian Church now employs, were instituted. I speak of
those which were instituted for the use of the whole Church. For the laying on
of hands, by which the ministers of the Church are initiated into their office,
though I have no objection to its being called a sacrament, I do not number
among ordinary sacraments. The place to be assigned to the other commonly
reputed sacraments we shall see by-and-by. Still the ancient sacraments had the
same end in view as our ownóviz. to direct and almost lead us by the
hand to Christ, or rather, were like images to represent him and hold him forth
to our knowledge. But as we have already shown that sacraments are a kind of
seals of the promises of God, so let us hold it as a most certain truth, that
no divine promise has ever been offered to man except in Christ, and that hence
when they remind us of any divine promise, they must of necessity exhibit
Christ. Hence that heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and legal worship which
was shown to Moses in the mount. There is only this difference, that while the
former shadowed forth a promised Christ while he was still expected, the latter
bear testimony to him as already come and manifested.

21. When these things are explained singly and separately, they will be much
clearer. Circumcision was a sign by which the Jews were reminded that whatever
comes of the seed of manóin other words, the whole nature of
manóis corrupt, and requires to be cut off; moreover, it was a proof and
memorial to confirm them in the promise made to Abraham, of a seed in whom all
the nations of the earth should be blessed, and from whom they themselves were
to look for a blessing. That saving seed, as we are taught by Paul (Gal. 5:16),
was Christ, in whom alone they trusted to recover what they had lost in Adam.
Wherefore circumcision was to them what Paul says it was to Abrahamóviz.
a sign of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 9:11):óviz. a seal by which
they were more certainly assured that their faith in waiting for the Lord would
be accepted by God for righteousness. But we shall have a better opportunity
elsewhere (chap. 16 sec. 3, 4) of following out the comparison between
circumcision and baptism.59[3]
Their washings and purifications placed under their eye the uncleanness,
defilement, and pollution with which they were naturally contaminated, and
promised another laver in which all their impurities might be wiped and washed
away. This laver was Christ, washed by whose blood we bring his purity into the
sight of God, that he may cover all our defilements. The sacrifices convicted
them of their unrighteousness, and at the same time taught that there was a
necessity for paying some satisfaction to the justice of God; and that,
therefore, there must be some high priest, some mediator between God and man,
to satisfy God by the shedding of blood, and the immolation of a victim which
might suffice for the remission of sins. The high priest was Christ: he shed
his own blood, he was himself the victim: for in obedience to the Father, he
offered himself to death, and by this obedience abolished the disobedience by
which man had provoked the indignation of God (Phil. 2:8; Rom. 5:19).

22. In regard to our sacraments, they present Christ the more clearly to us,
the more familiarly he has been manifested to man. ever since he was exhibited
by the Father, truly as he had been promised. For Baptism testifies that we are
washed and purified; the Supper of the Eucharist that we are redeemed. Ablution
is figured by water, satisfaction by blood. Both are found in Christ, who, as
John says, ìcame by water and blood;î that is, to purify and
redeem. Of this the Spirit of God also is a witness. Nay, there are three
witnesses in one, water, Spirit, and blood. In the water and blood we have an
evidence of purification and redemption, but the Spirit is the primary witness
who gives us a full assurance of this testimony. This sublime mystery was
illustriously displayed on the cross of Christ, when water and blood flowed
from his sacred side (John 19:34); which, for this reason, Augustine justly
termed the fountain of our sacraments (August. Hom. in Joann. 26). Of these we
shall shortly treat at greater length. There is no doubt that, it you compare
time with time, the grace of the Spirit is now more abundantly displayed. For
this forms part of the glory of the kingdom of Christ, as we gather from
several passages, and especially from the seventh chapter of John. In this
sense are we to understand the words of Paul, that the law was ìa shadow
of good things to come, but the body is of Christî (Col. 2:17). His
purpose is not to declare the inefficacy of those manifestations of grace in
which God was pleased to prove his truth to the patriarchs, just as he proves
it to us in the present day in Baptism and the Lordís Supper, but to
contrast the two, and show the great value of what is given to us, that no one
may think it strange that by the advent of Christ the ceremonies of the law
have been abolished.

23. The Scholastic dogma (to glance at it in passing), by which the difference
between the sacraments of the old and the new dispensation is made so great,
that the former did nothing but shadow forth the grace of God, while the latter
actually confer that it, must be altogether exploded. Since the apostle speaks
in no higher terms of the one than of the other, when he says that the fathers
ate of the same spiritual food, and explains that that food was Christ (1 Cor.
10:3), who will presume to regard as an empty sign that which gave a
manifestation to the Jews of true communion with Christ? And the state of the
case which the apostle is there treating militates strongly for our view. For
to guard against confiding in a frigid knowledge of Christ, an empty title of
Christianity and external observances, and thereby daring to contemn the
judgment of God, he exhibits signal examples of divine severity in the Jews, to
make us aware that if we indulge in the same vices, the same punishments which
they suffered are impending over us. Now, to make the comparison appropriate,
it was necessary to show that there is no inequality between us and them in
those blessings in which he forbade us to glory. Therefore, he first makes them
equal to us in the sacraments, and leaves us not one iota of privilege which
could give us hopes of impunity. Nor can we justly attribute more to our
baptism than he elsewhere attributes to circumcision, when he terms it a seal
of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Whatever, therefore, is now
exhibited to us in the sacraments, the Jews formerly received in
theirsóviz. Christ, with his spiritual riches. The same efficacy which
ours possess they experienced in theirsóviz. that they were seals of the
divine favour toward them in regard to the hope of eternal salvation. Had the
objectors been sound expounders of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would not
have been so deluded, but reading therein that sins were not expiated by legal
ceremonies, nay, that the ancient shadows were of no importance to
justification, they overlooked the contrast which is there drawn, and fastening
on the single point, that the law in itself was of no avail to the worshipper,
thought that they were mere figures, devoid of truth. The purpose of the
apostle is to show that there is nothing in the ceremonial law until we arrive
at Christ, on whom alone the whole efficacy depends.

24. But they will found on what Paul says of the circumcision of the
letter,59[4] and object that it is
in no esteem with God; that it confers nothing, is empty; that passages such as
these seem to set it far beneath our baptism. But by no means. For the very
same thing might justly be said of baptism. Indeed, it is said; first by Paul
himself, when he shows that God regards not the external ablution by which we
are initiated into religion, unless the mind is purified inwardly, and
maintains its purity to the end; and, secondly, by Peter, when he declares that
the reality of baptism consists not in external ablution, but in the testimony
of a good conscience. But it seems that in another passage he speaks with the
greatest contempt of circumcision made with hands, when he contrasts it with
the circumcision made by Christ. I answer, that not even in that passage is
there anything derogatory to its dignity. Paul is there disputing against those
who insisted upon it as necessary, after it had been abrogated. He therefore
admonishes believers to lay aside ancient shadows, and cleave to truth. These
teachers, he says, insist that your bodies shall be circumcised. But you have
been spiritually circumcised both in soul and body. You have, therefore, a
manifestation of the reality, and this is far better than the shadow. Still any
one might have answered, that the figure was not to be despised because they
had the reality, since among the fathers also was exemplified that putting off
of the old man of which he was speaking, and yet to them external circumcision
was not superfluous. This objection he anticipates, when he immediately adds,
that the Colossians were buried together with Christ by baptism, thereby
intimating that baptism is now to Christians what circumcision was to those of
ancient times; and that the latter, therefore, could not be imposed on
Christians without injury to the former.

25. But there is more difficulty in explaining the passage which follows, and
which I lately quote [5]óviz. that all
the Jewish ceremonies were shadows of things to come, but the body is of Christ
(Col. 2:17). The most difficult point of all, however, is that which is
discussed in several chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrewsónamely, that
the blood of beasts did not reach to the conscience; that the law was a shadow
of good things to come, but not the very image of the things (Heb. 10:1); that
worshippers under the Mosaic ceremonies obtained no degree of perfection, and
so forth. I repeat what I have already hinted, that Paul does not represent the
ceremonies as shadowy because they had nothing solid in them, but because their
completion was in a manner suspended until the manifestation of Christ.
4 Again, I hold that the words are to be understood not of their
efficiency, but rather of the mode of significancy. For until Christ was
manifested in the flesh, all signs shadowed him as absent, however he might
inwardly exert the presence of his power, and consequently of his person on
believers. But the most important observation is, that in all these passages
Paul does not speak simply but by way of reply. He was contending with false
apostles, who maintained that piety consisted in mere ceremonies, without any
respect to Christ; for their refutation it was sufficient merely to consider
what effect ceremonies have in themselves. This, too, was the scope of the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us remember, therefore, that he is
here treating of ceremonies not taken in their true and native signification,
but when wrested to a false and vicious interpretation, not of the legitimate
use, but of the superstitious abuse of them. What wonder, then, if ceremonies,
when separated from Christ, are devoid of all virtue? All signs become null
when the thing signified is taken away. Thus Christ, when addressing those who
thought that manna was nothing more than food for the body, accommodates his
language to their gross opinion, and says, that he furnished a better food, one
which fed souls for immortality. But if you require a clearer solution, the
substance comes to this: First, the whole apparatus of ceremonies under the
Mosaic law, unless directed to Christ, is evanescent and null. Secondly, these
ceremonies had such respect to Christ, that they had their fulfilment only when
Christ was manifested in the flesh. Lastly, at his advent they behoved to
disappear, just as the shadow vanishes in the clear light of the sun. But I now
touch more briefly on the point, because I defer the future consideration of it
till I come to the place where I intend to compare baptism with circumcision.

26. Those wretched sophists are perhaps deceived by the extravagant eulogiums
on our signs which occur in ancient writers: for instance, the following
passage of Augustine: ìThe sacraments of the old law only promised a
Saviour, whereas ours give salvationî (August. Proem. in Ps. 73). Not
perceiving that these and similar figures of speech are hyperbolical, they too
have promulgated their hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether alien
from that of ancient writers. For Augustine means nothing more than in another
place where he says, ìThe sacraments of the Mosaic law foretold Christ,
ours announce himî (QuÊst. sup. Numer. c. 33). And again,
ìThose were promises of things to be fulfilled, these indications of the
fulfilmentî (Contra Faustum, Lib. 19 c. 14); as if he had said, Those
figured him when he was still expected, ours, now that he has arrived, exhibit
him as present. Moreover, with regard to the mode of signifying, he says, as he
also elsewhere indicates, ìThe Law and the Prophets had sacraments
foretelling a thing future, the sacraments of our time attest that what they
foretold as to come has comeî (Cont. Liter. Petil. Lib. 2 c. 37). His
sentiments concerning the reality and efficacy, he explains in several
passages, as when he says, ìThe sacraments of the Jews were different in
the signs, alike in the things signified; different in the visible appearance,
alike in spiritual powerî (Hom. in Joann. 26). Again, ìIn
different signs there was the same faith: it was thus in different signs as in
different words, because the words change the sound according to times, and yet
words are nothing else than signs. The fathers drank of the same spiritual
drink, but not of the same corporeal drink. See then, how, while faith remains,
signs vary. There the rock was Christ; to us that is Christ which is placed on
the altar. They as a great sacrament drank of the water flowing from the rock:
believers know what we drink. If you look at the visible appearance there was a
difference; if at the intelligible signification, they drank of the same
spiritual drink.î Again, ìIn this mystery their food and drink are
the same as ours; the same in meaning, not in form, for the same Christ was
figured to them in the rock; to us he has been manifested in the fleshî
(in Ps. 77). Though we grant that in this respect also there is some
difference. Both testify that the paternal kindness of God, and the graces of
the Spirit, are offered us in Christ, but ours more clearly and splendidly. In
both there is an exhibition of Christ, but in ours it is more full and
complete, in accordance with that distinction between the Old and New
Testaments of which we have discoursed above. And this is the meaning of
Augustine (whom we quote more frequently, as being the best and most faithful
witness of all antiquity), where he says that after Christ was revealed,
sacraments were instituted, fewer in number, but of more august significancy
and more excellent power (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3; et Ep. ad Janur.). It is
here proper to remind the reader, that all the trifling talk of the sophists
concerning the opus operatum,59[6][5] is not
only false. but repugnant to the very nature of sacraments, which God appointed
in order that believers, who are void and in want of all good. might bring
nothing of their own, but simply beg. Hence it follows, that in receiving them
they do nothing which deserves praise, and that in this action (which in
respect of them is merely passive59[7]) no work can be ascribed to them.

D122 D122 That is, the sacrament cannot make the promise of God
objectively more certain, but it can make our faith in Godís promise
subjectively more certain. Godís Word is always absolute, strong,
unchangeable, and ìsettled in heavenî; but our faith, throughout
this life is always relative, weak, changeable, and frequently in need of
confirmation and assurance. Thus we properly distinguish between the objective
certainty of Godís Word, and the subjective certainty of our faith.

D123 D123 Sometimes this distinction is expressed in terms of the
form of administration of the sacraments (the words of institution, the
consecration of the element(s), and their application or distribution), on the
one hand, and their spiritual significance and value, on the other. The grace
of the sacraments does not lie in their fact or form, but in the Word received
by faith.

[5]95 595 French, ìMais on
fera encore un autre argument.îóBut there is still another
argument which they will employ.

D124 D124 Perhaps an expansion of Calvinís thrust will help
to illumine this ìdifficult point.î In Hebrews 9 and 10 it may, at
first glance, appear that the writer intends to draw a contrast between those
sacrifices offered under the law which were never able to take away so much as
a single sin, and the one sacrifice offered by Christ which is able to take
away all sins. Such a contrast, however, poses certain questions. For example,
what would have been the value of the atonement which the high priest was to
make each year, when, in the holy of holies, he offered blood for his own sins
and for the sins of the people? Again, why did Moses sprinkle blood upon the
book, the people, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the tabernacle, in
order (as Hebrews 9:19ñ23states) to purge and purify them, if the blood
of calves and lambs and goats cannot take away a single sin? And how could
David have written, ìBlessed is the man whose sins are forgivenî
(a blessedness applicable, according to Paul in Romans 4:6ñ8, not only
to David, but also to New Testament believers), if by the shedding of blood
during the Old Testament economy, there was no remission (forgiveness) of sins?
The objection may be raised, but then what does the writer of Hebrews mean when
he says (in 10:4) that ìit is not possible that the blood of bulls and
of goats should take away sinsî? And how are we to understand the
assertion (in 10:11) that ìevery priest standeth daily ministering and
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sinsî?
Two things appear clear: (1) That the writer of Hebrews does not mean that the
Old Testament sacrifices commanded by God were valueless or worthless (2) that
our interpretation must be compared to, be in proportion to, and be related to,
the analogy of faith (the teaching of Scripture as a whole). Perhaps a viable
solution to this problem can be found in two important distinctions; that
between temporary and permanent value, and that between extrinsic efficacy. As
we attempt to compare and contrast the sacrifices of the Old Testament with the
sacrifice by Christ of Himself, we discover that the emphasis in Hebrews 9 and
10, with respect to the Old Testament sacrifices, is upon their temporary value
(because they were repeated again and again), and their extrinsic efficacy
(because they were not intended to point to themselves, but to the atoning
sacrifice of Christ which gave efficacy to them); and we discover that the
emphasis in those chapters, with respect to the sacrifice of Christ, is upon
its permanent value (because it was completed once and for all by the eternal
Word made flesh), and its intrinsic efficacy (because it was and is a perfect
and complete satisfaction). The temporary value and extrinsic efficacy of the
sacrifices of the Old Testament is borne out by the terms used to express them
in these two chapters of Hebrews. They are called signs, or significations
(9:8), figures, or types (9:9, 24), patterns (9:23) and shadows (10:1). They
could make the believing worshipper perfect ìin the sense of final
completenessî, since He offered one sacrifice and then sat down, never
needing to offer again. But this should not be understood to mean that the
sacrifices of the Old Testament had no value and no efficacy with respect to
forgiveness of sins. If they were signs, they pointed to that which they
signified; if they were figures or types, they anticipated their antitype; if
they were patterns, they were patterns of the true reality; and if they were
shadows, they silhouetted the substance. These, then, would appear to be the
contrasts drawn in Hebrews 9 and 10. Impermanency and non-self-sufficiency
characterize the sacrifices of the Old Testament; permanency and
self-sufficiency characterize the Sacrifice of the New. The Old Testament
sacrifices of lambs were efficacious, but not of themselves, and not without
repetition; the New Testament sacrifice of the Lamb of God was efficacious of
itself, gave value and efficacy to the Old Testament sacrifices, and is perfect
and complete for ever.

[5]96 596 The French adds,
ìQuíils appellent en leur gergon.îóSo called in
their jargon.

[D]125 D125 This expression, opus
operatum, in connection with the sacraments, has been defined in the following
ways: (a) that the sacraments themselves are causes of the operations of
Godís grace (b) that the sacraments effect the grace they signify by the
inherent power of the sacramental action itself (c) that in the sacraments we
find materials and actions which are of themselves efficacious to give grace
(d) that the sacraments not only signify inward grace, but have the power of
producing it in the soul. In addition to these meanings (which are very similar
in content and thrust), Calvin appears to understand the expression, opus
operatum, as implying yet another dimension. He seems to define it as
ìan action which works,î or ìan active work,î thereby
implying, on the part of the recipient, some active participation which merits
the grace of the sacrament. Both the abovementioned definitions of the
expression and the implication suggested by it, Calvin strongly repudiates. The
sacraments do not have inherent power to produce grace in the soul, nor are
they made efficacious by any admixture of human merit which is brought to them
by sinful men.